stinger78
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,994
Yeah, it was that solid of a loss:
What data goes into this metric?
Yeah, it was that solid of a loss:
Efford was a really effective goal-line type rb in High-schoolProbably not. Boyd might, but I would say we need them mostly when we’re facing 1-2 yards at the GL or 3rd/4th downs. Also, if we’re missing big RB, we have to use what we have. The 80’s Bears used the “Refrigerator,” William Perry.
Zeek Biggers with the 3 yard plunge into the endzone! With that 2 point conversion, Georgia Tech goes up 15 over uga with less than one minute to play!Probably not. Boyd might, but I would say we need them mostly when we’re facing 1-2 yards at the GL or 3rd/4th downs. Also, if we’re missing big RB, we have to use what we have. The 80’s Bears used the “Refrigerator,” William Perry.
There is a huge difference between being a good RB (in any situation) and being some sort of receiver trying to be an RB. The OL play needs to step up for any success on ower run" plays more than anything.We could use a TE as a power RB if needed. I’d say Boyd might be a good candidate to start with. You could do it from the H-back position if you don’t want to give it away in a I-formation.
We could use a TE as a power RB if needed. I’d say Boyd might be a good candidate to start with. You could do it from the H-back position if you don’t want to give it away in a I-formation.
Efford was a really effective goal-line type rb in High-school
We’re getting desperateZeek Biggers with the 3 yard plunge into the endzone! With that 2 point conversion, Georgia Tech goes up 15 over uga with less than one minute to play!
That one is success rate (1st or 2nd down making at least half the yardage to a first, or getting a first, or scoring; for 3rd or 4th down, getting a first or scoring). Basically, the per down rate that you stay ahead of the chains.What data goes into this metric?
The more I have reflected, the less I think the term “doninated” applies.We made too many mistakes on ST, missed tackles, and both OL and DL were dominated against ND. Maybe could have had 6 more points but wouldn't have made any real difference.
Just to point out - fourteen of the teams that according to this metric had lower "net success rates" than their opponents actually won the game.That one is success rate (1st or 2nd down making at least half the yardage to a first, or getting a first, or scoring; for 3rd or 4th down, getting a first or scoring). Basically, the per down rate that you stay ahead of the chains.
He is subtracting GT’s rate from Notre Dame’s rate. If you’re better at moving the ball than the other team, you usually win.
On the far left of the chart, you see the teams that lost because they couldn’t kick field goals, fumbled in the red zone, threw a pick six, shanked their punts, or otherwise gave the game away (hello FSU)
Do you know if this is the same success rate that gameonpaper.com uses? Gameonpaper expresses it as a percentage, and even if you normalize that to a decimal fraction, it doesn't seem to line up properly with the values in the graphic for our game vs. ND.That one is success rate (1st or 2nd down making at least half the yardage to a first, or getting a first, or scoring; for 3rd or 4th down, getting a first or scoring). Basically, the per down rate that you stay ahead of the chains.
He is subtracting GT’s rate from Notre Dame’s rate. If you’re better at moving the ball than the other team, you usually win.
On the far left of the chart, you see the teams that lost because they couldn’t kick field goals, fumbled in the red zone, threw a pick six, shanked their punts, or otherwise gave the game away (hello FSU)
Seems very probable if a team with the lowere success rate can force TO's while not turning the ball over themselves. 3 yards and a cloud of dust has won a lot of games over the years.Just to point out - fourteen of the teams that according to this metric had lower "net success rates" than their opponents actually won the game.
Woody Hayes says hi.Seems very probable if a team with the lowere success rate can force TO's while not turning the ball over themselves. 3 yards and a cloud of dust has won a lot of games over the years.
Those are the real “the game was closer than it looked; we could/should have won” cases. Those are the cases where the fans are justified in saying “we gave the game away”. Auburn shot themselves in the foot to lose their game.Just to point out - fourteen of the teams that according to this metric had lower "net success rates" than their opponents actually won the game.
It looks like he calculates it differently. For him, it’s percentage of plays that you had an EPA > 0.Do you know if this is the same success rate that gameonpaper.com uses? Gameonpaper expresses it as a percentage, and even if you normalize that to a decimal fraction, it doesn't seem to line up properly with the values in the graphic for our game vs. ND.
But it's just focusing on one aspect of the game, and it looks like about 1/3 of the time doesn't even accurately reflect the winner.Those are the real “the game was closer than it looked; we could/should have won” cases. Those are the cases where the fans are justified in saying “we gave the game away”. Auburn shot themselves in the foot to lose their game.
For the rest of them (like us), it was a “yeah, they really did beat you that badly”.
You’re missing the pointBut it's just focusing on one aspect of the game, and it looks like about 1/3 of the time doesn't even accurately reflect the winner.
It seems a stretch to say that 1/3 of the time the losing team should have won, based on a cherry-picked stat.
The team that should have won the game is the team that did win the game.
You're right, I am.You’re missing the point
It’s not really trying to say that the losing team should have won, just that the losing team had a good chance to win and they failed to do so for various reasons. It’s basically a summation of the box score boiled down to 1 stat. Look at FSU vs Duke for exampleBut it's just focusing on one aspect of the game, and it looks like about 1/3 of the time doesn't even accurately reflect the winner.
It seems a stretch to say that 1/3 of the time the losing team should have won, based on a cherry-picked stat.
The team that should have won the game is the team that did win the game.
As far as I know, there's only one stat that's 100% aligned with winning--point differential. If you score more than the other guy, you win all the time.You're right, I am.
264 | 19-Oct | Non | 0 | Georgia Tech | H | Notre Dame | 13 | 31 | 0 | -18 | 0.4% | -21.3 |
---|
It’s not really trying to say that the losing team should have won, just that the losing team had a good chance to win and they failed to do so for various reasons. It’s basically a summation of the box score boiled down to 1 stat. Look at FSU vs Duke for example
Total yards
FSU: 291 - Duke: 180
Yards per play
FSU: 4.4 - Duke: 3.1
First downs
FSU: 16 - Duke: 10
Turnovers
FSU: 4 - Duke: 0
Penalties
FSU: 9(65) - Duke: 5(44)
FSU clearly was the more effective team on offense and defense, but their penalties and turnovers cost them the game. Not all of the games will look like this, some of them the team with the higher EPA will actually look worse in the box score stats. But it gives a good idea of what “actually” happened throughout the course of the game, and if the game should’ve been closer/had a different outcome on paper.
I think Buster has done a pretty good job of improving our success rate since he came on board. I also think there can be a bit of a trade-off between maximizing the success rate (just keeping the chains moving) and the need for explosives, which seem to me to come with a higher risk.And, crap, we've been pretty lucky this year, and looking back at it the Syracuse, ND, and Louisville games really show it. As good as our offense is--and it's good--it's not doing as well in success, explosiveness, or finishing as it needs to (it's been good at finishing EXCEPT in three games). Special teams has been losing field position battles for us.